1 Prioritising the right skills and
behavioural change
The Capabilities
Plan
1. The 2012 Civil Service Reform Plan states that:
The UK's budget deficit means that departments
are implementing significant reductions in public spending and
resources. At the same time they are supporting the Government's
radical programme of economic and public service reform. All departments
are already implementing substantial change programmes; but the
scale of the challenges and persistent weaknesses require a reform
plan that applies right across the Civil Service.[1]
2. In 2013 the Government published its Capabilities
Plan, described by the Cabinet Office as "a key part of the
government's overall Reform Plan".[2]
The stated purpose of this plan was to "transform the Civil
Service into a high-skilled, high-performance organisation that's
less bureaucratic and more focused on delivering results."[3]
This is the first time that such a corporate plan has been published
for the whole Civil Service, though it follows a long line of
reports and plans to reform the civil service. While individual
departments remain responsible for identifying and meeting their
own training needs, the Capabilities Plan identifies four areas
that should be prioritised by all departments in addition to their
own, department specific, training needs.
3. The plan, designed to mirror similar initiatives
undertaken successfully by the private sector, features an increased
focus on operational skills. In particular it focuses on four
key skill areas:
· leading and managing change;
· commercial skills and behaviours;
· programme and project management; and
· digital skills.
4. The Cabinet Office reports that "in summer
2013, all 36 government departments undertook a baseline review
of their capabilities and skills to inform their own departmental
capabilities plans and published individual Departmental Improvement
Plans."[4] According
to the Cabinet Office the results of this review "confirm
that across government, the four priorities are the right ones
and that all departments have capability needs in all of the four
priority areas."[5]
Welcome, but too narrow
5. Most witnesses to this inquiry agreed that the
areas focused on by the Capabilities Plan warrant attention. Taking
an overall view, Rob O'Neill of the FDA trade union told us these
are "broadly the right priorities".[6]
Specialists such as the Project Management Institute tell us that
they were "heartened by the emphasis placed on effective
project management".[7]
6. However, we have heard from a number of witnesses
that this approach is too narrow and excludes additional keys
skills that have broad application across government. In particular
there was criticism about the lack of focus on complementary skills
and specialisms needed to support the development of the four
skill areas of the Capabilities Plan. Leslie Manasseh (Deputy
General Secretary of the trade union, Prospect) told us that Prospect
was concerned that these skills are currently being "hollowed
out",[8] something
which would eventually lead to more failed projects and programmes
if not addressed. He explained that the successes of large procurement
projects run by departments such as the Ministry of Defence or
the Department for Transport are based not only on procurement
and contracting skills, but also the skills supporting these function;
the "intelligent customer capability":[9]
These are scientific and engineering skills that
have to enable the procurement function to take place properly.
You cannot have proper procurement in the defence industry unless
you have an understanding of defence technologies.[10]
The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) has a similar
message. It welcomes the fact that the Government was clearly
advocating better use of digital services.[11]
However, it warns that "for redesigning services and delivering
them digitally, we expect a strong emphasis on improving the ability
for the public and other stakeholders to access public data".
Highlighting the findings of the independent Shakespeare Review
of Public Sector Information, carried out by Deloitte on behalf
of Government in May 2013, the RSS tell us of a "generalised
lack of skills and familiarity to work with data", which
may undermine such digital objectives.[12]
While the RSS has worked with the Government Statistical Service
to provide regular statistical training to the Ministry of Defence,
Home Office, and the Department for Communities and Local Government,
it tells us that the application of such skills was broader, more
needs to be done to develop such skills "in a generic sense,
across all the professions."[13]
Knowledge management
7. Knowledge management is another skill that was
highlighted to us. We recently heard from the National Archive
about the mixed abilities of the Civil Service in this area, as
part of our one-off hearing on the Preservation of historical
files in the Civil Service.[14]
However, despite the recent Records Review by Sir Alex Allan having
highlighted the generic nature of this skill, by setting out a
series of related recommendations to all Civil Service departments,
there is no focus on building knowledge management skills in the
Capabilities Plan.[15]
History & Policy tell us that this omission is reflected in
the absence of any Civil Service Learning (CSL) training provision
in this area:
Previous incarnations of civil service training
showed how both substantive historical content, and how to search
and analyse the archive, could enrich policy making. The National
School for Government included core historical components. CSL
has no equivalent history core, which we believe is storing up
a major deficit in the toolbox of skills civil servants require
for excellent policy making.[16]
Risk
8. We have also heard warnings about a lack of focus
on risk management and risk reporting at all levels within the
Civil Service and the impact this is having on its ability to
deliver major projects and achieve commercial outcomes. Risk management
is not a focus of the Capabilities Plan, in fact the word 'risk'
appears only once in the 27 page document.[17]
However, a number of witnesses stressed the need for greater development
of this skill across Whitehall. The Institute of Risk Management
(IRM) call the current approach "inconsistent", stating
that there is "little evidence of support for professional
training and development in risk management".[18]
The IRM tells us that the impact of this skills deficit has been
seen in "problems with Universal Credit rollout and the Passport
Office backlog which indicate that 'optimism bias' is winning
over an informed risk review approach."[19]
The CBI, which represents a number of public sector service providers
from which the Government buys key services, agree with this position.
They tell us that "too few civil servants have a sufficiently
broad understanding of the operational and financial risks in
contracting", resulting in "imperfect contract models
that raise the cost of services, as suppliers need to cover the
costs of insuring against such liabilities." [20]
The CBI also tells us that "suppliers cite frequent problems
experienced in risk reporting", providing the following example:
On a contract, issues that a provider highlighted
as "red" on the shared risk register, which required
addressing further up the chain of command, were subsequently
re-classified as "yellow" by contract managers in order
to avoid the need to escalate. But when things (rarely) subsequently
went wrong, civil servants then asked suppliers why they were
not told of the issue, even though this was highlighted through
the risk register.[21]
9. This example demonstrates a lack of skills relating
to the evaluation and understanding of risk and missing risk reporting
capabilities. The Universal Credit example IRM cite is another
such project that, in addition to suffering from poor risk management,
suffered from the poor communication of risk. As the Public Accounts
Committee (PAC) found in its November 2013 report Universal
Credit: early Progress:
Risk was not well managed and the divergence
between planned and actual progress could and should have been
spotted and acted upon earlier. The Department only reported good
news and denied the problems that had emerged.[22]
We asked Oliver Robbins (Director General, Civil
Service at the Cabinet Office) about the omission of such skills
from the Capabilities Plan. He told us:
There is a list of about another six things,
just beneath the four that we have chosen to prioritise, that
in my ideal world I would have every civil servant in the country
looking at. However, I think it was right to choose four […]
I really want to make some decent progress on those.[23]
He explained that beyond CSL there is a network of
"departmental HR functions and HR directors" which is
currently dealing "as best it can, with that second list
of priorities below the top four". However, Oliver Robbins
states that this does not involve "trying to mandate extra
courses or put enormous extra resource into them."[24]
10. The focus
on the four key skills highlighted in the Capabilities Plan is
welcome. It is acknowledged that these skills require improvement
in all departments. However, overall the approach is too narrow
and one-dimensional. The development of the key skills that are
the focus of the Capabilities Plan will be undermined if the maintenance
and development of key complementary and supportive skills, relevant
to all departments, are neglected and allowed to erode.
11. We recommend that the Cabinet Office should
invite National Audit Office to conduct an evaluation of the specialist
skill needs generic to all departments, and expand the Capabilities
Plan accordingly. The Cabinet Office should then ensure that all
departments are required to monitor, maintain and develop resources
in these areas. This in particular should include a greater focus
on risk management and risk reporting skills.
Attitudes and behavioural traits
12. There is a danger skills change is not accompanied
by an effort to support the right change in attitudes and behavioural
traits. The International Institute of Business Analysis, UK Chapter,
tell us of an interviewee who reported that the government body
they work in "sent people on PRINCE2 training courses and
then considered them to be project managers"[25]
As a number of witnesses have told us, an approach based on the
gaining of skills alone will not work. In addition to gaining
skills, civil servants must be assisted in adapting their attitudes
and behaviours. A key factor in encouraging this is fostering
a culture in which civil servants feel free to adapt their behaviour
in response to training; to use the new skills they have gained
and try new approaches. The CBI tells us, with reference to the
development of commercial capabilities, "inspiring change
across the civil service requires senior leaders to give commercial
and operational staff sufficient 'headroom' in which to operate
differently."[26]
We asked our witnesses what behavioural traits or attitudes within
the Civil Service should be encouraged, Stella Manzie told us
that:
We need to encourage approachability, devoting
sufficient time to staff management, including performance management,
and being able clearly to express what the political and governmental
objectives are in a way that is understandable not just to the
most senior staff but to the most junior frontline staff.[27]
13. The requirement for change was acknowledged directly
in the, recently published, Civil Service Leadership statement:
"we will give our teams the space and authority to deliver
their clearly set objectives".[28]
The Civil Service Leadership statement has been described
as a single, clear statement of "what you can expect of Civil
Service leaders at all levels".[29]
It highlights the 3 key characteristics that an extensive Civil
Service consultation indicated staff expected from effective leaders,
and that Civil Service leaders have now promised to live up to.
They will be:
· Inspiring—about their work and its
future
· Confident—in their engagement
· Empowering—their teams to deliver.
14. Something that will hamper progress in this area
is the presence of a blame culture. We highlighted the growth
of such a culture in our report Truth to power: how Civil Service
reform can succeed, a topic the Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development (CIPD) comment on:
Operating within a "blame" culture
creates fear and a sense of psychological threat, and this is
likely to produce a defensive response. Practitioner studies,
academic research and accepted domain knowledge [suggest] that
"learning" is directly impeded if someone is under threat.[30]
The CIPD tell us that "Ministers need to get
the balance right between holding individuals accountable and
stoking a national "blame" culture. Failure to get this
balance right leads to unproductive learning contexts and damages
organisational performance."[31]
The Capabilities Plan does highlight the need to focus on such
cultural changes and some positive steps have been made in this
regard. However, as the Cabinet Office tell us, "culture
change remains a particular challenge".[32]
15. We asked Bill Crothers (Civil Service Chief Commercial
Officer) how he measures the effectiveness of cultural change
in the Civil Service. He told us that: "you do not measure
culture":
You see the impact. I always think that you do
not need to measure the wind-speed to know wind is blowing. You
see the trees bending. The way we would measure the impact is
we will have fewer contractual failures. That is the key.[33]
16. Gaining
new skills is essential for the Civil Service. The required change
in associated attitudes and behaviours is a key enabling step
to this. Civil servants must feel empowered to use the new skills
they gain, to innovate and take risks appropriately. Progress
in this area must be regularly evaluated and subject to objective
assessment.
17. Future versions of the Capabilities Plan should
focus more on enabling and tracking behavioural change within
departments. The Cabinet Office should define, implement and monitor
changes in attitudes and behaviours, using measures of engagement
from the Annual People Survey, and other less formal feedback
to encourage approachability, listening to the views of staff
at all levels, devoting sufficient time to staff management, including
performance management, and being able clearly to express what
the political and governmental objectives are in a way that is
understandable to all staff. This will increase focus on behavioural
change and allow progress to be openly appraised.
1 Cabinet Office, The Civil Service Reform Plan, June
2012 Back
2
Civil Service, Meeting the Challenge of Change: A capabilities plan for the Civil Service,
April 2013 Back
3
As above Back
4
Minister for the Cabinet Office [CSS26] Back
5
As above Back
6
Q 107 Back
7
Project Management Institute [CSS1] Back
8
Q 107 Back
9
As above Back
10
As above Back
11
Royal Statistical Society [CSS8] Back
12
Stephan Shakespeare, Shakespeare Review: An Independent Review of Public Sector Information,
May 2013, and Royal Statistical Society [CSS8] Back
13
Royal Statistical Society [CSS8] Back
14
Oral evidence taken on 22 July 2014, (2014-15), HC 550, Q 1-127 Back
15
Cabinet Office, Records review by Sir Alex Allan, November 2014 Back
16
History & Policy (H&P) [CSS22] Back
17
Civil Service, Meeting the Challenge of Change: A capabilities plan for the Civil Service,
April 2013 Back
18
Institute of Risk Management [CSS28] Back
19
As above Back
20
Confederation of British Industry [CSS30] Back
21
As above Back
22
Public Accounts Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2013-14,
Universal Credit: early Progress, HC 619, November 2013 Back
23
Q 251 Back
24
Q 260 Back
25
IIBA UK Chapter Limited [CSS18] Back
26
Confederation of British Industry [CSS30] Back
27
Q20 Back
28
HM Government, Civil Service Leadership Statement, February 2015
and Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development [CSS4] and
Public Administration Select Committee, Eighth Report of Session
2013-14, Truth to power: how Civil Service reform can succeed,
HC 74 [incorporating HC 664-i-x,Session 2012-13], September 2013 Back
29
https://civilservice.blog.gov.uk/2015/02/12/better-leadership-in-the-civil-service/ Back
30
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) [CSS4]
and Public Administration Select Committee, Eighth Report of Session
2013-14, Truth to power: how Civil Service reform can succeed,
HC 74 [incorporating HC 664-i-x, Session 2012-13], September 2013 Back
31
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) [CSS4] Back
32
Minister for the Cabinet Office [CSS26] Back
33
Q 153 Back
| 
